traceType

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool 'traces' but does not specify what is returned, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key action ('Trace where a type comes from...'). It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 6 parameters (5 optional), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. It omits what the trace output looks like, how depth works, and any constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has full (100%) parameter descriptions, so the burden on the description is reduced. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already covers parameter semantics adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool traces type origin and composition, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like getDefinition or getTypeAtPosition, which return definitions or type info, while traceType focuses on tracing composition.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getDefinition or getTypeAtPosition. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving agents to guess its appropriate context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.